2 Apr 2026
Refusal to grant leave to appeal out of time because the applicant's delay of 3 years and 8 months was inordinate, the applicant failed to provide proposed grounds or identify any error in the decision so there was no reasonable prospect of success, and granting an extension would be futile and prejudicial.
18 Dec 2025
The summons for specific discovery is dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay by the defendant; there was no satisfactory explanation for the late issuance of the summons and granting the application at this late stage would unfairly prejudice the plaintiffs and disrupt trial preparation, therefore dismissal is warranted without determining relevance.
22 Aug 2025
The Court held the May Decision was not amenable to judicial review because the Director was acting in his capacity as landlord under a private Block Crown Lease and the applicants failed to prove bad faith or an improper ulterior motive; the delay, requisitions and imposed conditions did not meet the heavy standard required to convert a private decision into a public law matter. JR1 was academic. Applications dismissed and costs awarded to the Director.
15 Oct 2019
The summons was dismissed because it was taken with inordinate unexplained delay and was pointless given the same issue was already before the winding up court and the winding up petitions were imminent; granting the injunction would improperly interfere with parallel proceedings and would amount to an abuse of process, warranting dismissal and indemnity costs against the plaintiff.
13 Nov 2017
The impugned paragraphs pleaded claims which are the same as, or coextensive with, matters already settled or capable of being enforced under the Tomlin Order in HCA 1885/1987 and were previously the subject of enforcement proceedings dismissed for inordinate delay; permitting the claims would amount to an abuse of process and manifest unfairness, therefore the court struck out those paragraphs and consequential passages and awarded costs to the 1st defendant.
30 Jul 2014
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; the judge did not misapply legal principles nor exercise his discretion plainly wrongly in refusing to strike out for want of prosecution.
26 Feb 2013
Leave to adduce the proposed expert evidence was refused because the application was inordinate delayed without satisfactory explanation, the expert evidence was unnecessary to decide the core trust claim (and the valuation would not affect adequacy of consideration), and permitting it would cause prejudice by depriving the defendant of reasonable time to instruct and obtain responsive expert evidence ahead of trial.
18 Nov 2010
The court refused to extend time and dismissed the applications because the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, the plaintiffs had notice of the trial and their absence was deliberate or a conscious decision, the plaintiffs lacked sufficient prospects of success given their primary claim against Stereo, and prejudice and public interest in finality outweighed reopening; discretion was therefore exercised against granting relief.
14 Jun 2010
Both actions were struck out for want of prosecution: Newbond's prolonged inaction (failure to comply with directions, no affidavit explaining delay) amounted to inordinate and inexcusable delay and an abuse of process and created a substantial risk that a fair trial would be impossible; dismissal was fair and appropriate; costs awarded to defendant.
7 Sept 2009
The claim was struck out because the plaintiffs allowed over two years of inordinate delay after commencing proceedings, causing presumptive prejudice and amounting to an abuse of process; the Civil Justice Rules (Order 1A Rule 1(b)) apply and require dismissal where delay thwarts just resolution.